"Is there Innovation in Rules?" Topic

Analsim:

While I have no problem with your division of motivation between designers, all game designs are meant to satisfy needs right now. No one designs for the 'future', including anyone attempting an innovation.

So, do you see the Lead Pushers and/or Historical-Rules Writers providing any innovation. Does "Black Powder" for instance?

Of course, I have been talking about how the hobby got to where it is today rather than simply describing the current situation, at least in response to some of the analysis presented on the thread.

Analsim. I have to dipute your figures my own experoience is only 10% actually interested in real historical games and most of them are not rule writers.

Divide rule writers up into periods and in any 1 period the number of rules writers is minimal.

We as rule writers proably won't agree even with what constitutes an inovation. There is proably some innovation in rules but we could proably never agree even what that was.

I consider my rules to have innovation, many prameters (not all) that are diffrent to any other rules I am aware of. However most lead pushers then dislike it as too complex simply becuse it requires more decisions, despite simple rules and further commits the heinous crime of having no points system and limiting toys on table and making equal points battles stalemates as they normally should be.

The extreemly limited pool of simulation players means ther will be little/no common ground for players. Wolfhag and I are simulators but in may ways our spheres of interest are far appart even if in the same perion, him on fine detail on timeings of fire, me on a much broader spere. There is inovation we can recognise on both sides but it may not be in our area of interest.

So the answer is there is an interest but its my no meands where the money is.

The money is effectively in "fashion clothes" same kit oftern re-cycled but claimed as "new". My daughters are into "40's" fashion and it sells well and atracts buyers yet it is the ultimate in recycled ideas. Much like the lead pushers idea of new rules.

For the lead pushers, there has been innovation with more accurate model molds, realistic terrain, and 3D printing. I think Combat Patrol has a fairly innovative card system (like Up Front?). TFL use of the Command Dice may not be new but is fairly innovative and players like it. The board game by GMT called "Tank Duel" uses an interesting system somewhat like Combat Patrol and Up Front and has an innovative way to portray range without using a traditional hex map. I know the designer and developer.

Most of the changes I've seen in miniatures rules have been attempts at different activation systems using dice and cards, rules, and modifiers. Most seem to be arbitrary and not based on historical weapons platform performance, crew differences or rates of fire. Some version of that seems to satisfy the majority of players.

My Action Timing system is somewhat like Phoenix Command but I use one second time slices and Phoenix Command two seconds and that is basically using the OODA Decision Loop.
OODA Decision Loop explanation: bit.ly/2kwyyyn

I also add some randomness to the outcome with D20 die roll and account for crew differences (better crews are quicker). I also allow a player to shoot sooner (historical Risk-Reward Tactical Decision) but with an accuracy penalty so players do have a hand in their fate. However, if they hurry their shot and miss they may not live to get off a second shot.

There are enough variables that you cannot accurately predict when a unit will shoot so the Fog of War is built-in without needing additional rules or die rolls. Needless to say, my system is more playable than Phoenix Command, as is almost any other game. I use customized data cards to streamline the mechanics and implement the nuances of different weapons platform timing performance into the game.

To engage a target with the first shot a single D20 roll takes into account the amount of time to detect, get the gun on target, aim, and fire based on historical performance. The "advanced" version of the game breaks these different factors down into more historical performance detail.

Being flanked takes longer and overwatching in the right direction takes less time. Faster turret traverse is quicker as are good crews. Being buttoned-up takes longer. Follow up shots at the same target takes into account the reload and aim time which normally translates to the gun's historical rate of fire. Engaging a new target takes longer too.

Players can normally decide to shoot 1-4 turns sooner but with an accuracy penalty. On the turn to shoot a player can decide to "track" his target and shoot in any future turn with no timing delay. This allows for more historical ambushes or waiting for a flank shot.

To keep things from getting too predictable, something can always go wrong. On the turn of firing, rolling a 20 on the D20 (5% chance)is a SNAFU and something goes wrong. A die roll determines what it is and there is a small chance it will affect the target, not the shooter. I've taken historical actions that occur in combat like misfires, mechanical breakdowns, jams, crew mistake/panic, loader slips or loaded the wrong round, defective round, etc. Players can use their own too.

There is a 1 in 2000 chance of a round exploding in the chamber and wouldn't you know it the first time I used that rule my Tiger I had it happen.

I can trace all of my ideas and rules to a previous game so I'm not sure these would qualify as innovative. The Action Timing system is basically what the OODA Decision Loop is all about so each player will naturally adapt to the system and I'm not sure it has been successfully implemented in previous games.

I think what my system delivers is a more accurate portrayal of 1:1 combat without the need for abstracted rules to determine the initiative (each unit acts within their own OODA Loop and "Acts/Shoots" in a future turn after issuing an order), sequence of actions and activations within a game turn of 10-90 seconds.

In the game you are always moving to the next turn a unit is going to perform an action and skip over turns of no action. The result is you get more shooting and moving into the same amount of game time. It may not be innovative but it is different but of course not to everyone's liking. I think as UshCha said, many players are heavily invested in their game mechanics and activation systems as it works for them and delivers the right feel and is not interested in something new.

A big difference from most games is that with most activation and IGYG rules there is no planning needed. Your IGYG turn is called out or you activate and your order is executed immediately. Using the OODA Loop and Action Timing, a player needs to predict what will happen in the next 5-15 turns and whether and how to shoot or move/evade. There is more reliance on the player's judgment and use of Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions. Poor judgment results in dead units as there is less reliance on the dice or activation mechanics.

Movement markers show the distance a unit moves each turn in 5 turn segments. This allows players to realistically judge where a unit may be in 5-15 turns. Taking too long to fire at a fast-moving target may allow it to dodge out of your LOS just like in real combat. It requires no opportunity fire rules because movement and firing are synchronized to the same one-second game turn, somewhat like a video game.

I think the player decisions to shoot or move immediately after Acting (no orders phase, after Act, go back to Observe in the loop) speeds up the game. The factors that go into the timing of an action that "Acts" in a future turn are more similar to real battlefield decisions except the player has more time to analyze the action and make a decision.

The Action Timing system is also very playable for solitaire and larger games too because there are less rules and mechanics to go through.

Wolfhag

The extreemly limited pool of simulation players means ther will be little/no common ground for players.

Wolfhag:

I think this is more a design and perception issue than a limited group of players who would be interested. That is, unless you assume that:

1.Historical wargame players aren't interested at all in history or how it is portrayed on the table.

2. Simulations can't be attractive to 'lead pushers'

3. Lead Pushers aren't really interested in playing games for the most part.

No doubt the spectacle is a major draw [it is for me] as well as the figures and the attendent craft involved [It is for me], but those things don't present an 'either/or' design issue other than again designer awareness of methodologies and gamer perception.

I suspect there is nothing new under the sun, but the real question is has everything, which is known, been tried. I feel this is a classic example of vision is a commodity, execution is an art. I have seen a lot of interesting ideas, but many of which have not been tested in a holistic set of rules. As an example, many folks have created different order rules, but few work effectively in an actual game. A case of vision hitting the rather rough and hard road of reality.

Sometimes you do come across a good idea which causes you ask yourself, why I never thought of that. A classic one which really stunned me was the concept of rout in a very old set of WW2 micro armour rules, printed in a number of wargamers digest magazines. Basically rout was built into the combat system. Casualties being high, but with lost element able to come back after a rout test in the housekeeping phase. The element was then placed back as reinforcement next to its headquarters.

I initially though this will never work, but I was wrong. I then realised I spent a lot of time moving routing units or elements on a playing area, making sure they would not affect anyone else. This was never a pleasant job but necessary to ensure it routed in the correct direction and did not cause any other units to rout as well. Simply removing the unit and giving it a chance to return based on its morale works very well and sped up game play no end.

Thus, there are no new ideas, but sometimes an idea works so well in a specific situation you find yourself wondering why you had never thought of this before.

A quick comment about rules and what makes a set of rules successful, or fail. While there are no new ideas, the package of ideas can be new. Thus if you have a set of rules, such as DBMM, creating another set of rules which achieves the same objective in a different way will probably not succeed. I am aware this occurred when DBM turned into DBMM, but in that case DBMM was closer to a new version of the same rules. A better example would be DBA, this was a new set of rules designed to exist concurrently with WRG 7th edition, DBM and DBMM and it was very successful. The reason was it offered a very different gaming experience and it had a strong differentiator.

Moving away from the actual rules there are other factors, supporting material. Flames of War probably did well because it had an excellent support infrastructure, as well as marketing. Rapid fire, while a different scale, offered a similar experience, yet Flames of war rapidly became more successful. Part of this was the scale, but this was not the main reason.

Thus to be successful you need to identify what is successful now, then decide if you want to create something very different, or something similar but with a better support infrastructure and/or superior marketing. Both of these assume the rules you have created offer players an enjoyable experience, within whatever parameter you have defined.

The last aspect, defined game parameter, also need to be considered, The Age of Eagles provided a good historical "Big battle" experience, but only if you have a large playing area which can remain setup for several days. As a result its very successful in the US, but less so in the UK (or Europe). On the other hand BBNB can allow players to simulate the same battles on a smaller playing area within a day, thus is more popular when players lack space. Blucher also fit into this category, although it provides a far less historical experience, but because is quick and can be played on a smaller playing area, it is popular in Europe. Even DBMM tends to be more popular in the UK or Asia because it can be played on a 2 x 3' playing area.

What does innovation mean? In our own rules we have made the rules less complicated. This in effect has made the game in some aspects more challenging you have more options as the rules are faster and more simple.

An example that always sticks in my mind for the modern period. In our rules due to the simple rules it can have fast movement (the same rough concept as in DBM but using a different risk reward system). Now this makes it possible to have traffic jams on roads without any rules, a win win as I see it as there were a common issue in WW2 engagements.
However I was told in short by one player that having to a plan to avoid traffic jams was utterly unacceptable. Dice OK, to actually have them as an issue, completely unacceptable too much thought.

There may be no innovation simply because the majority don't want it. DBA is nowhere near the innovation of DBM so is far less demanding, perhaps why it has lasted so well.

To me innovation is extending the range of historical options but with less rules. The average lead pusher probably wants simpler rules and even less thought. Cards seem to push rules that way and to me ate not innovation Featherstone wrote about cards p in the 1960's when I was a kid.

At Maneouvre Group we have a saying that many rules are about telling the players what to do, not allowing them to be creative which requires more thought than going down a "Chant List" of factors.

Similarly the random factor seems to be excessively prominent so that ability does not guarantee a win most of the time like in sport; again a counter innovation attitude.

A Quick play version, or simplification, of existing rules is a valid and very popular "Value Add" and you are correct, once you simplify a set of rules players need to do more, which is a good thing.

pfmodel You would have though so. But it appears doing it faster for many seems to mean do less and chat more, not do more in the game. That may be why the unbelievably poor (from my standpoint)games are popular. They minimize thought and playing time while displaying far more vehicles on the ground than is sensible with a linear ground scale. It just shows I am out of touch with the majority.

It just shows I am out of touch with the majority.

Me too, thank God. But then again, not a model painter and builders like most of you. As much as I admire it, just don't have the time and patience.

Wolfhag

A lot of the poor games are popular because of other factors, such as bling, marketing, supporting material, etc. Flames of War is a classic example. On the other hand the old timers like detail, so BGMR is moderately popular, or something in between, such as Spearhead is moderately popular. In both these cases its often to do with finding opponents or a lack of desire to learn a new set of rules.

The other factor to consider is some players just want to game as a social experience. Competitions or campaigns tend to remove those players, leaving the hardened players who just want to win.

But the hobby is so fragmented I am uncertain what the majority is?

Here is an idea for innovation:
Rather than using playing cards to determine unit activation and other actions use a deck of Tarot cards. The possibilities are endless.

Wolfhag

It is a wonder that this question comes up over and over again. I NEVER see this question in the simulation/wargame discussions on Comsim and other sites. Why here?

Innovation has a very simple definition: "a new method, idea, product, etc."

So how could our wargames be innovative?

1. In game mechanics and game concepts
2. In new paraphernalia and components with the game, including game pieces, use of old tabletop pieces, new types of rules presentation, or new CRT-type material, etc.
3. In graphic: Pictures, card, game and rule book presentations.
4. Additional supporting materials
5. On-line support for the game rules
6. applications for games including as a gateway game or teaching tool.

I could go on, but I think we have seen quite a bit of innovation in those areas over the years… at a steady rate. I think part of the problem is that many of the folks asking that question or answering it don't have a real good grasp of miniature game rules history. To actually identify innovation, what is really new, you have to know what is current and provided in the past.

To follow up on Wolfhag's post, the possible uses of cards in wargames is huge and hardly explored with miniature wargames…

It is also good to keep in mind that one application of cards is to provide the history in historical wargames.

Thanks Bill. My last post was somewhat tongue in cheek but I guess for fantasy type games it could have some interesting possibilities.

I think 3D printing and Bluetooth have possibilities.

I was at DundraCon in San Ramon two years ago and a guy had a 70" flat screen TV placed flat on a table with the screen side facing up. He had it hooked up to his laptop to function as a monitor and was able to bring up some excellent graphics for maps and playing surfaces. He added other features and the players moved their miniatures on the screen. It was some type of fantasy or D&D game. I thought it was pretty cool.

FYI, I've sold my house in CA and moved to 30 miles east of Chattanooga. I got more than twice the house for just over half the price. So far I really like it and no state income tax. There are many refugees from California out here. My daughter is 2 hours west (she has a shooting range in her backyard)and my son is in Fredricksberg, VA.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag: Well, congratulations! So cool to be so near a private shooting range. Now, with twice the house, you'll have room for a BIG table. However, you won't be getting to Pacificon and the Sacred Tomato as easily [or at all]. That is a sad note. Good luck!

Take Care, Bill

Game concepts and mechanics can be a source of innovation.
Paraphernalia is most certainty a necessary evil. Adding more or simply changeing it is a step back. loinizing its use in most certainly a bad thing. Our rules have it as a neccessary evil. CRT matetial why does that help the perfect rules need no such item? Chess in many ways is the perfect game (t5oo hard and obtuce for me) very simple rules but gereat depth. No paraphernalia required.
Additional supporting material, Again unhelpful ideally all that is needed is a "history" book. We provide some additional material but its not innovative again a necessary evil.
Online support, again not innovative, an innovative design should not need it in a perfect world. Again it may be necessary but its not an innovation.
number 6 escapes me as to the meaning.
Card seem to me to be a pointless gimmick, Paraphanalia at its worst.

Clearly my opinion of innovation and the one in the text are wildly at odds. I have been playing wargames from about 10 and am 68 now so the history is part of my life but good game design and innovation are not history based so what passed before is of no consequence.

"number 6 escapes me as to the meaning."

"6. applications for games including as a gateway game or teaching tool."

Sounds like phone apps or similar.
Such a game wouldn't interest me, as I don't have a cell phone… ;-)

Wolfhag, here ya go:

TMP link

;-)

Thanks Zephyr1. I should have known.

Augmented Reality phone apps have potential. Has anyone tried it?

Wolfhag

Zephyr1, I am modern by your standards I have a cell phone but it has real buttons and the battery lasts for 3 weeks! My wife's I S***t (n) (insert random number here) lasts less than a day most of the time.

Why would a phone do anything useful? I take a computer tablet as its easy and holds a PDF of the rules and is a camera for multi evening games but a phone screen it to small to do that. Phones seem to me to fall under the Paraphernalia category and worse than cards as the cost is an even more ridiculous amount.

UshCha,
You could point your phone camera at a QRC code and have it stream a short video on how to play different aspects of the game or show a PDF of the rule. This would help players learn the game and not have to open the rule book as often.

Wolfhag

6.Applications for games including as a gateway game or teaching tool.

I would think phone apps and cameras would be paraphernalia, or maybe mechanics, # 1 & 2.

Applications of the game has to do with specific purposes for the game. There are several that have been or could be used.

1. For beginner players, a gateway game. Simple
2. A game that is purely for entertainment containing no history or very stylized like the board game BattleCry or A Fistfull of Dice
3. A wargame designed specifically to be used as an educational or training tool.
4. A wargame system meant to be used for all historical eras. Several rules sets fall into or are 'pushed' into this type.
5. A wargame meant to only model one battle.
6. A wargame specifically meant to be used in tournaments or specifically not.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The innovation would be doing this in a new way, or adding to the list with a new set of purposes for the wargame.

Me Laddie, your list to me is not innovation but a list of game types, none of which are new to me. New faster more accurate rule systems for the training aid games with respect to history and or education would be innovation. Fantasy games I am not sure I could judge what was inovation as the objectives of the game using figures escapes me. Pure entertainment games to me are inevitably cheap and cheerful. Domino's etc. What constitutes innovation may indeed depend on the objectives of the game.

I've put miniature Bluetooth speakers inside of model buildings. From my cell phone I can play different realistic battle sounds.

Wolfhag

At shows with larger figures I have seen LED flickering lights under cotton wool smoke.

Me Laddie, your list to me is not innovation but a list of game types, none of which are new to me.

UshCha;

Yes, and a creation of a new 'type' of game or a new way/purpose for older types would be innovation. Do you want examples?

Here is a review where two guys think Combat Patrol is innovative:

link

I've never played it.

Wolfhag

To be honest I gave up on the review. Once you had 3 sets of cards plus D6 it was way to much Gimikary for me.

The guys failed for me intantly, as the first thing should have been groundscale, not mentioned before I gave up.

Randome is just that, I can be done with a die, takes minimal space and time and its cheap to boot.

We have played with random activation in the past. We certainly have always found it a disadvatage, more rules for no gain I could ever discern. So again one mans inovation is anothermants retrograde step.

Randome is just that, I can be done with a die, takes minimal space and time and its cheap to boot.

You shouold take a class in probability.

link

etotheipi, you miss the point, even with a D20 you can (very) approximately sample form a normal.
This again means you can do a reasonable job without resort to exccessive paraphinalia on the table, allowing the player to concentrate on commanding within the battlespace, not playing "Poker".

The perfect game (to me) would be something like chess, no rules on the table as they are simple enough to remember and more than enough challenge in the game. Whilst a wargame is not chess, the underlying objective of as much play as possible with the absolute mininum neccessaty rules is the perfect game.

Adding cards does not to me, move in that direction, so to me it's not innovation. However as has been pointed out game design criteria are as personal as the folk that play them.

UshChr, you miss the point.

First, there's more to the world than a normal distribution. Very few things in military performance actually follow that distribution. Abd your d20 only sives you a discrete linear distirbution so …

Second, cards can approximate a normal distribution with a binomial with a better chi-squared fit than a d20 without a lookup table.

So, while any monothread differentiable distribution can be replicated to a some degree (depending on the size die) with a discrete linear generator, everyting except a simple linear needs a table. More complex distributions that represent more complex real world concepts require more complex look ups, but not necessarily any lookups for cards.

And, of course, you either didn't bother to read the link, or you for some reason completely ignored the content in it.

"A wargame meant to only model one battle." …..

often referred to as a scenario.

;-)

B

Certainly for me the radom ellement does not need any sophistication. Hit rates and armoure penetration is a basic random factor. The test data is in that form, it can't be much more as in any given trial there are few repeats with the same variables. That means that different more exotic presentations of the random element is pointless with resprct to the simultation.

I will grant that for those who are less interested in real world tactics and prefere the distractions of playing cards rather than acting as a commander it may have some appeal and so thay may see it as innovation but not me.

Hit rates and armoure penetration is a basic random factor. The test data is in that form,

Please provide a link to that data. I must have missed that bit in my 20 years actually testing and evaluating military equipment.

It's OK if you don't actually want anything realistic in your games. Toy distributions that only appear in elementary textbooks are fine.

It's OK if you don't want to face realistic decision in your game. Simple ones that create response functions that you can precisesly calculte in your head make the game decisions very simple.

It's OK if you completely ignored any of the actual statsitcis presented to you.